Exxon favours a carbon tax


Exxon Mobile confirms its support for a carbon tax.

“Combined with further advances in energy efficiency and new technologies spurred by market innovation, a well-designed carbon tax could play a significant role in addressing the challenge of rising emissions,” Kimberly Brasington, a spokeswoman for the company, said in an e-mail. “A carbon tax should be made revenue neutral via tax offsets in other areas,” she added.

Exxon’s political action committee gave nearly $1.2 million to political candidates in the past two years, 93 percent of it to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Exxon is the biggest U.S. natural-gas producer. A carbon tax could boost demand for natural gas in U.S. power plants, as gas emits half the carbon dioxide as coal when burned to make electricity.

Nearly four years ago, the company’s chairman endorsed a carbon tax over cap-and-trade.


Exxon favours a carbon tax

  1. Our article addresses the Kyoto Protocol in light of Prof. Yandle’s “bootleggers and Baptists” theory of regulation, a subset of the economic theory of regulation. The theory’s name is meant to evoke 19th century laws banning alcohol sales on Sundays. Baptists supported Sunday closing laws for moral and religious reasons, while bootleggers were eager to stifle their legal competition. Thus, politicians were able to pose as acting in the interests of public morality, even while taking contributions from bootleggers. We argue that a similar phenomenon took place in the battle over the Kyoto Protocol, where the “Baptist” environmental groups provided moral support while “bootlegger” corporations and nations worked in the background to seek economic advantages over their rivals.


    • A bit of a tip on scrutinizing research articles…
      If someone wrote a working paper dated from 2001, and the research has not been published in any journal as of today, 11 years later, that’s a pretty good signal the research has very significant flaws.
      Notwithstanding that, I’ll take it Prof Yandle falls into your ‘clever’ column, not the ‘dim bulb’ column.

        • This article is dated 1983, and has nothing to do with carbon taxes/environmental policy. Nor does it contain any research, only theory. The Kyoto Protocol didn’t even exist yet for another 14 years.
          Try again.


  3. Oh that IS inconvenient….

  4. Exxon is really “net short” oil…(i.e. it has more refinery capacity than actual oil production) which is why it favors a carbon tax. Exxon is also net long natural gas with respect to oil.

    i.e. It is talking its book. It can use its size to its advantage in the oil industry if a carbon tax is imposed. A carbon tax benefits it on a relative basis relative to smaller competitors and national oil companies.

    Ditto for Shell.

    • Nonsense. They don’t consume the gasoline they refine. You forgot to add in the gasoline they sell in your little equation.

Sign in to comment.